If a signed license says that authorized users for remote access include "current students, faculty, and staff only" or "active faculty, students, and staff only" or even "bona fide current faculty, staff, and students only" can we conclude that terminated faculty would not be legally allowed to have remote access after their termination? (Walk-ins are a separate matter; here we are looking at remote access). Some licenses allow "affiliates" and some even say that it's up to the institution to determine who gets credentials to allow remote access, but we have more than 20 licenses that state in one way or another "current faculty" only. I would take that to mean that former faculty, regardless if the institution allows them to keep their credentials for a year after termination, would NOT be legally allowed to continue to access those resources.
Am I right?
To give readers a bit of context about my answer to this: between 2006 and 2017, I was an in-house attorney at a university. During that time, I hobnobbed with a lot of other higher education attorneys; first, because the hobnobbing helped keep us current in our practice, and second, because attorneys--like murders of crows or parliaments of rooks--are social creatures, who just need to talk about the law.
One of the many higher education/law topics that could turn a flock of lawyers into a full-fledged symposium was the issue of what is meant by the term "faculty."
Are adjuncts "faculty"? Are grad student instructors "faculty"? If a full-time staff member teaches a course or two, are they "faculty?"
Complicating the issue is that the definition of "faculty" will vary from institution to institution, based on union agreements and accreditor criteria--to say nothing of state law and regulations.
And finally, a wrinkle can be created when a "faculty" member leaves regular employment with a college or university, but assumes a new (and often under-defined) status, such as:
This issue of undefined status is the type of topic that will occasion lots of discussion and perhaps another round of potables at a lawyer’s kettle. Why the fuss? Examples exactly like the one brought up in this question. Lawyers hate it when we can't put things into minutely defined boxes to process through a legal formula (after all, the order we impose by doing so is the entire reason for our professional existence).
Here are some examples of what "disorder" a clause like those in the question is meant, by the content provider, to avoid:
Of course, just what is barred, and how "former faculty" access could violate it, is highly fact-specific. So let's take a look at the member's specific question:
...we have more than 20 licenses that state in one way or another "current faculty" only. I would take that to mean that former faculty, regardless if the institution allows them to keep their credentials for a year after termination, would NOT be legally allowed to continue to access those resources. Am I right?
Yes, you're right: if a faculty member is terminated and has no ongoing affiliation as a faculty member (even a tenuous affiliation, such as an honorary appointment or "emeritus" designation, which could give some slim justification), then there is no basis to claim they are "current faculty."
In my experience talking with aeries of higher ed attorneys, the most common way this type of concern is raised is when a faculty member is terminated, and asks to take their institutionally-issued laptop computer with them (often because it is the sole computer they have)--continuing access to servers and databases that would otherwise be cut off. Many places want to do the nice thing and say "yes," but there's a catch: the institutionally-issued computer usually has proprietary software and access that is only available to (you guessed it) current employees. (In addition, if the faculty member was teaching, it might house a lot of content protected by FERPA. So, this question of ongoing access to content only licensed for use by current employees is often the tip of a big compliance iceberg.)
But at this point, I have passed from answering the question (remember? The answer was "Yes!") and moved onto the practical considerations. Practical considerations, of course, are where many of the devilish details reside, but having answered the question, we'll leave it there for now.
Hopefully, this answer from within the conclave of the higher education law has provided some assistance and clarity. I wish the member well; raising this type of contract compliance concern, which can cut across departments at a college or university, is rarely easy, but it's the right thing to do for an institution.
Thanks for a good question.
 Other hot topics that guaranteed a searing debate included: how to negotiate contracts with musical acts, how to build support for meeting accreditation requirements into institutional policy, and the ups and downs of enforcing campus parking policies.
 Yes, and damn important faculty, too.
 Yes, I had fun looking up the proper titles for flocks of birds. https://www.thespruce.com/flock-names-of-groups-of-birds-386827
 That, and to provide endless fodder for television dramas, based on our glamorous lifestyle and impeccable fashion sense.
 If the problem is caused by retention of a computer post-termination, the best way to address it is through a policy that manages this type of situation up-front. For such a policy, there are really only two options: wipe the licensed content and all institutional information from the computer before the former faculty member is allowed to keep it, OR make it clear that institutional computers cannot be transferred after termination (neither of these solutions, of course, is likely within the authority of the institution's library staff to implement. Having a good working relationship with a head academic officer, and/or HR, can allow you to flag this issue to people in a position to do something about it.).
Tags: Academic Libraries, Digital Access, E-Books and Audiobooks, Licensing
A high school band has purchased music with permission to perform. The music teacher has requested that the performance be shared on the school's website. From my understanding, the performance may be shared live / streamed (permission to broadcast) via the school's web page but may not be recorded and then posted to the website. The public performance relates to the site/building and not to the World Wide Web.
Please confirm whether my understanding is correct.
Your understanding is correct, but there are three additional details it is helpful to consider in this type of situation:
First, when a school confronts a concern like this, it should take a careful look at the license (the permission to use a copyright-protected composition) it purchased.
This is because a license for sheet music can convey not only permission for on-site performance and broadcast, but also "recording" and "publishing" (posting). I have observed that the range of these permissions will vary not only between publishers, but even between songs at the same publisher. So, before recording (or deliberately not recording), check the fine print; you might have more (or less) permission than your district thought.
Second, it is good to consider why the school wants to make the recording and post it on the school website. Is it to simply showcase the band on a page dedicated to the school's achievements? Is it for fundraising purposes? Or is it posted as part of a student newspaper or student club newscast? If the post is part of an academic endeavor--especially one related to commentary or gathering news--posting part of a recorded performance could be a fair use.
And third--though still on the topic of fair use--it is important to remember that "Circular 21" pertaining to "Reproduction of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians" confirms that the Copyright Act allows educators to make:
"A single copy of recordings of performances by students...for evaluation or rehearsal purposes...."
Now, under no circumstances am I saying that this provision gives a school permission to record and publish (post) a copyright-protected musical work. But a copy that is created incident to streaming can be retained by the school or teacher, and perhaps posted to an intranet, if they plan to use it for rehearsal or evaluation later.
The important take-away from all of these is: your school may have options from not only within but additional to the license. By assessing the precise permission your school received, the reasons for recording, and the reasons for posting, a school can consider their full range of options.
Of course, what copyright law can give, contract law can take away. So, if your school has secured a license with a specific agreement that you will not make and post a recording, remember that's a contract term it agreed to, even if fair use would otherwise authorize the use.
I know, I know, thinking about copyright while planning to make the most of a performance can feel like allegro, adagio, adagio, allegro...
Just andante, like the question models, plan what you need, and you'll find a good pace!
Thank you for a thoughtful question.
 I know "streaming" and "recording" are different, but as a technical matter, "streaming" does create a digital copy, even if it is fleeting.
 This answer does not consider limited posting on an intranet, although I'd argue that with planning such posting could be consistent with the CONTU guidelines for retaining a copy for rehearsal or evaluation.
 This is why people negotiating for license content should always be trained to not negotiate away rights your district has by law.
Tags: CONTU, Copyright, Fair Use, Licensing, Music, Streaming
Is it a violation of Copyright Law to publicly share a video recording of a DJ playing music from his music library for a public library archive and make this available for on-demand viewing?
My favorite DJ-related story is about how "scratching" a record, as both a musical instrument and an act of composition, evolved in the hip-hop scene of the late 1970's and early 80's. It is a story of technological innovation, of community culture, and (as all good stories are) controversy. DJ's, like all contributing figures to culture, make for compelling scholarship. So I am not surprised to see this question about audio-visual content portraying a DJ on a library archive.
The short answer is: sure, it could be a violation; but there are five things that can keep it on the right side of the law—or at least mitigate the risk if there is an unintentional violation.
Here are those five "things":
Is the posted video part of a well-developed and organized collection or archive?
If "yes," go on.
Does the metadata on the unique video reflect that it is part of a well-developed and organized collection?
If "yes," go on.
Is the music part of a recording of an event, or is the music a separate track with all other ambient sound (the crowd, street noise, the DJ talking over the music) removed (or never there)?
Even if "no" go on, but have the next two really, really tight.
Has your library conducted and documented a "fair use" analysis of its posting of this particular content, and to the best of its ability, reflected accurate ownership of the item in the metadata and item information on the archive?
If “yes,” go on.
Does your library have a "notice and takedown" contact point posted on its website, so anyone who believes the content is an infringement can complain, AND has your library registered for "safe harbor" under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?
If "yes," DJ on!
Why do I have to do the "5-step hustle" to answer what seems like a simple (if compound) question? Because how and why content is used can transform "infringing use" to non-infringing "fair use." For a component of a scholarly or historic video archive, this means being able to show that a musical recording incorporated into an audio-visual record is not merely a gratuitous use of the audio content, but rather, a critical element of a work that transcends (and doesn't simply replace) the purpose of the original.
This is, in some ways, a tall order. But if you follow steps "1" through "4" above, you significantly increase your likelihood of getting it right. And as for step 5: the DMCA has been in the news, recently, as a part of the national info-tech infrastructure that is due for an overhaul. But for now, it can protect certain kinds of service providers (like search engines, directories, and other information location tools) from liability for third-party infringement, and it is an essential part of any information database's copyright compliance toolkit.
Thank you for a good question.
 Which makes a sound like either "schkud-shckud-shzyaaa" or "hschhzka- hschhzka-zreek" depending on how you translate it into onomatopoeia, along with the skill and intent of the person doing the scratching.
 According to his tag in the Cornell University Hip-Hop Collection, scratching was invented by Grandwizzard Theodore. However, there is some assertion that Grandmaster Flash put Theodore on the path to the scratch. Either way, it is a good story.
 If you are looking for a new era to get obsessed with, early Hip-Hop is a good one. It is replete with geniuses, scandal, and triumph—and provides insight into cultural and community factors relevant to today.
 This 5-step analysis assumes your library is a not-for-profit educational institution (like a public library).
 As in: done the analysis in writing (generally a form), and retained the form.
 From 17 U.S.C. Section 504(c)(2): "...The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords..." Of course, making video "available" can be considered a transmission under certain circumstances (like streaming), so make sure your "fair use" conclusion is solid.
 Your institution can register for "safe harbor" in some instances (when it is more of a "provider" than a "publisher") here: https://www.copyright.gov/dmca-directory/
 I like the way Creative Commons does it: https://creativecommons.org/dmca/
Tags: Copyright, COVID-19, Fair Use, Licensing, Music, Streaming
Is it permissible to make digital copies of choral music that is legally owned by the institution to students in choral and instrumental ensembles? Some students may be studying remotely and mailing physical copies may result in lost or non-returned copies.
There are four ways it can be permissible:
1. Check the license from the publisher and see if the purchase of the physical copies came with any digitization/duplication permission. You'd be surprised how many rights you buy (or don't buy) when you make that hard copy purchase. Publishers take a variety of approaches on this, and an individual publisher's permissions may change from work-to-work, so confirm (or rule out) this approach for each work.
2. If the license does not allow making digital copies, contact the publisher, and see if it can be expanded. Publishers are now getting many requests like this and may be ready with a simple (and affordable) solution.
3. I am not a fan of them (they are as outdated and as risky as the Ford Pinto), but the "CONTU" guidelines speak to this issue. I am including the relevant guidelines, as presented in Copyright Office Circular 21, under this answer. If one of your precise needs fits one of the "permissible uses" listed in Circular 21, you are all set.
4. Speaking of CONTU, the first "permissible use" listed in the guidelines may help you out here, with a slight twist on your scenario. In the event that the physical copies listed in the question are mailed out and not returned as feared, the guidelines allow for emergency copying after the fact (of course, they also require that at some point, you purchase more physical copies, but at least you can get the copies to the students).
Those are my four solutions, based on conventional approaches and current case law.
I'll also throw out a "fifth option" based on a slightly different approach, which, depending on some precise facts, could work for faculty teaching choral classes:
The 110 Solution
Copyright Section 110 allows an academic choral group (if meeting as part of a class) to display "a work in an amount comparable to that which is typically displayed in the course of a live classroom session," during an online class/rehearsal.
How can that help with the member's scenario?
Let's say I am in a class that is working up an a capella performance of "36 Chambers," as arranged by the composers of the original work.
If the class was still meeting physically, Copyright Section 110(a) would allow us to perform the song and to display the music on the in-class smart board. In the online environment, the same performance and display could happen via the internet, as allowed by 110(b) (the "TEACH Act")—again, so long as only the amount "typically" displayed in class was shown.
Whether in-person or online, the rehearsal would include review of the different parts for bass, tenor, alto and soprano, with the relevant music displayed on the screen. While an academic institution can't tell people to take screen shots of the music displayed for rehearsal purposes, students who want to snap screenshots of a class to take notes is a fact of modern-day academia. If a student who was told to purchase a copy of their part uses this method to ensure they are practicing on an incremental basis, that's out of the school's control, and the student can make their own claim to fair use.
This type of solution should never be used as a deliberate alternative to the purchase of individual copies. But so long as the display is incremental and truly a part of the in-class experience, it is a viable option.
I wish all music faculty approaching the Fall 2020 semester many good performances, whether virtual, or face-to-face. These are tough days for people who love to sing, who enjoy the community of a choir, and who need to hone their vocal art in collaboration with others. Hunting for music should not add to the burden, and with a few tricks and an awareness of the limits of the law, it doesn't have to.
Guidelines for Educational Uses of Music
The purpose of the following guidelines is to state the minimum and not the maximum standards of educational fair use under Section 107 of H.R. 2223.
The parties agree that the conditions determining the extent of permissible copying for educational purposes may change in the future; that certain types of copying permitted under these guidelines may not be permissible in the future, and conversely that in the future other types of copying not permitted under these guidelines may be permissible under revised guidelines.
Moreover, the following statement of guidelines is not intended to limit the types of copying permitted under the standards of fair use under judicial decision and which are stated in Section 107 of the Copyright Revision Bill. There may be instances in which copying which does not fall within the guidelines stated below may nonetheless be permitted under the criteria of fair use.
Reproduction of Copyrighted Works
1 Emergency copying to replace purchased copies which for any reason are not available for an imminent performance provided purchased replacement copies shall be substituted in due course.
2 For academic purposes other than performance, single or multiple copies of excerpts of works may be made, provided that the excerpts do not comprise a part of the whole which would constitute a performable unit such as a section¹, movement or aria, but in no case more than 10 percent of the whole work. The number of copies shall not exceed one copy per pupil.
3 Printed copies which have been purchased may be edited or simplified provided that the fundamental character of the work is not distorted or the lyrics, if any, altered or lyrics added if none exist.
4 A single copy of recordings of performances by students may be made for evaluation or rehearsal purposes and may be retained by the educational institution or individual teacher.
5 A single copy of a sound recording (such as a tape, disc, or cassette) of copyrighted music may be made from sound recordings owned by an educational institution or an individual teacher for the purpose of constructing aural exercises or examinations and may be retained by the educational institution or individual teacher. (This pertains only to the copyright of the music itself and not to any copyright which may exist in the sound recording.)
1 Copying to create or replace or substitute for anthologies, compilations or collective works.
2 Copying of or from works intended to be “consumable” in the course of study or of teaching such as workbooks, exercises, standardized tests and answer sheets and like material.
3 Copying for the purpose of performance, except as in A(1) above.
4 Copying for the purpose of substituting for the purchase of music, except as in A(1) and A(2) above.
5 Copying without inclusion of the copyright notice which appears on the printed copy. (iv)
Discussion of Guidelines
The Committee appreciates and commends the efforts and the cooperative and reasonable spirit of the parties who achieved the agreed guidelines on books and periodicals and on music. Representatives of the American Association of University Professors and of the Association of American Law Schools have written to the Committee strongly criticizing the guidelines, particularly with respect to multiple copying, as being too restrictive with respect to classroom situations at the university and graduate level. However, the Committee notes that the Ad Hoc group did include representatives of higher education, that the stated “purpose of the … guidelines is to state the minimum and not the maximum standards of educational fair use” and that the agreement acknowledges “there may be instances in which copying which does not fall within the guidelines … may nonetheless be permitted under the criteria of fair use.” The Committee believes the guidelines are a reasonable interpretation of the minimum standards of fair use. Teachers will know that copying within the guidelines is fair use. Thus, the guidelines serve the purpose of fulfilling the need for greater certainty and protection for teachers. The Committee expresses the hope that if there are areas where standards other than these guidelines may be appropriate, the parties will continue their efforts to provide additional specific guidelines in the same spirit of good will and give and take that has marked the discussion of this subject in recent months
 Checking a license is not an exact science. Some publisher's use a catch-all that is included on their invoices. Others put the information right on the music. Others like to make you really hunt for it, but it is usually part of the sale transaction. This is why, when making a purchase of music, it is good to take a screen shot or save the paperwork related to the purchase.
 Note: To my knowledge this work does not exist, but it is on my wish list of music to hear. I love it when genres collide.
 This new version would be a "derivative work" based on the original, and have its own copyright protection as a musical composition.
 We have reached the limit of my choral knowledge. Is there separate sheet music for mezzo-soprano and counter-tenor? Probably. I am sorry, I quit choir in 7th grade.
Tags: CONTU, Copyright, Digitization and Copyright, Licensing, Music, Section 110, COVID-19, Emergency Response
With the recent closing of schools I and my membership have been asked a great deal about Teachers Pay Teachers. Is it responsible for teachers and districts to provide students with materials purchased through this service?
[NOTE: This answer is part of our ongoing response to institutions moving to online instruction as part of the world’s response to COVID-19. For additional Q&A on that, search “COVID-19” in the Ask the Lawyer search utility.]
“Teachers Pay Teachers” (“TPT”) is an interesting service that allows teachers to license (sell rights to) others who need customized lesson plans and educational material.
The member’s question relates to the TPT license, which governs what individuals and organizations can do with the content.
If the member’s question is asking: does the TPT license allow us to print and distribute the materials in hard copy for packets sent out by the District? The answer is generally: yes.
If the member’s question is asking: does the TPT license allow us to distribute the materials electronically using e-mail or a website or a Learning Management System? The answer is generally: it depends.
I spent some time on TPT’s website reviewing their “Terms of Service” and I believe teachers and organizations will need to examine the license for each separate purchase to confirm that electronic distribution is allowed.
Why? TPT’s “Terms of Service” largely allow for the creation of hard copies, but their default conditions bar online distribution. HOWEVER, TPT also allows the teachers supplying the content to loosen those default restrictions (including allowing distribution on the web, e-mail, etc.)…so while one lesson purchased from TPT might not allow a web or e-mail distribution, another might.
This can change not only from author to author, but content to content, so it is important to read the fine print.
I would add: these are early days in the pandemic response. As of March 26, 2020, TPT did not have any expressly Covid-19 policies on its website. Nevertheless, like other online and tech providers, they may realize their hour has come, and take action.
What will that action be? I can’t say; a crisis brings out the best and the worst in businesses. Some businesses will try and simply profit from the current situation; others will dig deep, conclude we are all in this together….and try to find at least middle ground.
Thank you for this important question.
USING LICENSED CONTENT TIP: If you or your institution conclude that TPT or another license does give you permission for electronic distribution, it is a good idea to take a screen shot of that license and save it (just e-mail it to yourself in a place where you know you’ll have it for 3 years after you’re done use the content). Online content providers can change the terms they post, without warning—and you want to be able to show that on the day you made the call to share the content electronically, the licensor allowed you to do so.
 Because some educational institutions own the rights to teacher-generated materials, and some do not, the Teachers Pay Teachers model is a fascinating study in copyright issues—but a global pandemic is not the time to muse over that.
 As of March 26th, 2020: https://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Terms-of-Service
 The Terms of Service allow you to: “Print and make copies of downloadable Resources as necessary for Personal Use. Copies may be made and provided to your students, classroom aides, and substitute teachers as necessary. Copies may also be made for students’ parents, classroom observers, supervisors, or school administrators for review purposes only. Hard goods and video resources may not be copied, shared, or otherwise reproduced.” [emphasis added]
 But not further tighten them. Like I said, a really interesting model.
 For instance, one license I looked at, for a chemistry class, said: “These resources may not be uploaded to the internet in any form (including classroom websites, personal web sites, Weebly sites, network sites) unless the site is password protected and can only be accessed by the students of the licensed teacher.” In other words: yes, you can distribute them electronically, if you use a restricted system!
 The diversity of author-specific permissions I saw on TPT was really interesting. Some folks just want credit. Others want you to not send the content, but drive people to their own personal listings (so their analytics show the hits). I bet some, in the coming days, will even change their permissions to respond to the pandemic with compassion.
Tags: COVID-19, Emergency Response, Licensing, School Libraries, Teachers Pay Teachers, Employment
Many librarians create and post LibGuides through Springshare. Right now, when an employee leaves a library, the LibGuides they created can be attributed to another library employee after they leave. Does this create a legal concern?
I am a hands-on kind of lawyer. When I do a real estate deal, I visit the property. When I advise a historic preservation group, I drag my kids to see old houses. When I represent a bakery, I try not to pack on an extra five pounds, but it’s always touch-and-go.
So, when this question came in, I hopped on SpringShare and checked out their product description for LibGuides, and pretended I was going to write one. I delved into the license terms and the mechanics of the utility. I observed how their various products work together, or a la carte.
On the SpringShare website, LibGuides is summarized this way:
“LibGuides is an easy-to-use content management system deployed at thousands of libraries worldwide. Librarians use it to curate knowledge and share information, organize class and subject specific resources, and to create and manage websites.”
I checked in with a few librarians I know (one of whom works in my office), and they reported that yes, the product is widely used and popular. While mine was a very unscientific survey, the day I hopped on, SpringShare’s web page boasted participation by “6,100 libraries” and “82 countries” and “130,300” librarians.
I noticed a lot of legally interesting things when I was down the SpringShare rabbit hole, but I what I focused on was the member’s question: is there a legal concern related to attributions of LibGuides content?
I started with the LibGuides License, which states:
OWNERSHIP OF DATA: Licensor does not own any data, information or material that you submit to the Software ("Customer Data").
In other words, SpringShare (the licensor) confirms that the subscriber (the licensee) owns the content they put on LibGuides.
The License then goes on:
You, not Licensor [remember, Springshare is the “Licensor”], shall have sole responsibility for the accuracy, quality, integrity, legality, reliability, appropriateness, and intellectual property ownership or right to use of all Customer Data, and Licensor shall not be responsible or liable for the deletion, correction, destruction, damage, loss or failure to store any Customer Data.
This means that while the licensee (the subscribing librarian or library) owns the content, they are also responsible for the consequences created by any content they don’t have the rights to (infringement claim, violation of privacy claim, etc.).
This is a very typical approach for content-sharing platforms.
The License then states:
In the event this Agreement is terminated, Licensor will make available to you a file of the Customer Data in XML format within 30 days of termination if you so request at the time of termination.
Isn’t that generous? If you remember to ask nicely at the time you terminate the contract, you (the Licensee) have thirty whole days retrieve your property.
This property arrangement is at the heart of the member’s question. SpringShare claims no ownership of the content placed on LibGuides. That content, unless licensed from another, is supposed to be owned by the licensee (the person or entity contracting with SpringShare for the service).
But is the “licensed LibGuides user” the content owner?
In the member’s question, the “licensed LibGuides user” was probably the library (it would be very unusual, and not business-appropriate, for an account for an institution to be in an individual person’s name). So, the library is the one getting assured they own the content put up through the account, and the library is the entity responsible in the event the content causes a problem (infringes copyright, invades someone’s privacy, etc.).
Now this is where the issue gets sensitive. Under copyright law, content generated by employees, AS PART OF THEIR REGULAR DUTIES, is owned by their employer—unless a contract, policy, or hire letter says otherwise. This “default rule” is spelled out in section 201(b) of the Copyright Act.
How does this play out in the work environment? It varies. Many librarians are part of a union, which means the written work they generate as part of their job might not be subject to the above-described “default rule” (a collective bargaining agreement can change the terms of employment related to copyright). Still others work in environments where this “default rule” has been changed through a policy, or a hire letter.
This lack of uniformity means that any librarian composing LibGuides, who wants to use their compositions after they move to another job, should make sure they know where they stand when it comes to “employee-generated intellectual property.” Does their workplace follow the “default rule?” Does a union contract, policy, or hire letter change the “default rule?” And is writing a LibGuide even part of their duties?
This is critical, because depending on who owns the content, they are free to do as they like with it: keep it up, remove it, change it, update it, etc. (of course, what they do on LibGuides is limited by the License and the technology). And it is also critical because the current configuration of LibGuides seems, to me, to create a potential problem.
Now, that addressed the legal part of the question; the answer is: yes, there are some legal concerns. But the “legal” concerns might not be the full scope of the concerns presented by the question’s scenario. Attribution of authorship is different from ownership, but it can be a critical issue of integrity.
My understanding of how LibGuides functions is that the account holder can change the roles, authority, and people admitted to create, modify, or access the content. Within LibGuides, subscribers have the ability to assign users (Admin users, Regular users, Editor users, Contributor users, and Patron users) with different levels of access and authority.
Within this structure, “Admin users” (who have the highest level of authority over an account), manage the Licensee’s use of the service. The settings are changeable, and different LibGuides can be assigned to different users.
But what was WILD to me is that when a librarian leaves a library, to maintain the LibGuide, the library has to assign another staffer to the Guide. That’s fine and makes sense, but because of LibGuide’s interface, that new person is then listed as the librarian in charge of the guide, and the way the screen looks (to me) the implication is that they are the author.
I believe that is the genesis of this question; people who took pride in their creation of a LibGuide first attributed to them are now seeing (implied) authorship (seemingly) attributed to another. I have to admit, whether I owned it or not, that would sting a little. Writing, even if it’s for your job, can be a very personal endeavor.
This seems entirely due to the design of the interface. Between you, me, and the Internet, it seems like a needless and utterly solvable problem. And while not necessarily a legal issue (although if the former employee owns their work, it could be) it strikes me as a serious ethics/integrity/relationships issue.
Authorship is something people take seriously, especially in the arenas of academia and publishing—worlds in which librarians play an essential role.
How can this be solved?
First, LibGuides might want to think this through and develop a solution. But until then, libraries using LibGuides should assess their legal position (do they own their employees’ work under the “default rule”? Or does a contract or policy say otherwise?) and, think how this phenomenon rests with their values. On the flip side, librarians who create a great LibGuide and then want to move on in their professional careers should pay attention to who is the LibGuide’s “owner” and be mindful that a LibGuide owned by their employer will not always be in their name. Further, the mutable nature of LibGuides (they are designed to be updated, altered and changed) means you might not always want to be associated with what the Guide turns into!
Thanks for a great question.
 As a rule, I try to avoid snark and sarcasm in the “Ask the Lawyer” service. Such rhetoric doesn’t age well, and there are defter ways to be funny. That said, this one deserves some snark. Thirty days, and then potentially thousands of dollars of your assets are lost? Not so great.
 The law reads: “In the case of a work made for hire [which includes “a work prepared by an employee within the scope [their] employment”] the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.”
 As of March 6, 2020.
 On March 6, 2020, I found these categories on the LibGuides FAQ at ask.springshare.com/libguides/faq/1119#general.
 Hi, SpringShare! I am confident you can fix this!
 For instance, I would create a “Legacy Content and History” option for customers, where the evolving work and chain of authors could be tracked. Of course, that would still put the ultimate fate of the content in the hands of the employer, but it would empower them to maintain good feelings between librarians.
Tags: Copyright, LibGuides, Licensing, Ownership, Employment
The question, as a follow up to the Oct 31, 2019 post about showing movies and Swank.
Regarding Netflix, this is there term of use:
Netflix Service 4.2. The Netflix service and any content viewed through our service are for your personal and non-commercial use only and may not be shared with individuals beyond your household. During your Netflix membership, we grant you a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable right to access the Netflix service and view Netflix content through the service. Except for the foregoing, no right, title or interest shall be transferred to you. You agree not to use the service for public performances.
My question- does Swank’s license allow for this OR does Netflix’s license stand even though rights are secured by the movie studio.
I must be very clear: Unless I obtained a written representation signed by an officer of Netflix, I would never advise a corporate client to rely on the Swank umbrella license to show a video from a “personal and non-commercial” Netflix account.
Why is this? Because the one license does not trump the other.
To illustrate this concern, here is the best analogy of I could come up with: if it’s bow hunting season and I get a bow hunting license, I can bow hunt. I can commune with nature, test my skills, and if I’m lucky, come home that night and make some venison stew.
But if, while eating my dinner, the police stop by to investigate an allegation that I shoplifted the bow and arrows, they won’t say: “Oh, you have a license? Sorry, back to your stew.”
The same principle applies here. A Swank license can definitely allow your institution to watch a covered movie you lawfully obtain. But the Netflix license quoted by the member does not allow the movie to be shown beyond the account holder’s “household.” And the language makes it clear the account is for “non-commercial” uses. In other words: a copy used to further institutional operations was not lawfully obtained.
Unfortunately, Swank is pretty coy about this concern. Here is the language from the link provided by the member:
Where can I acquire movies after we receive our license?
You can use movies that are secured from any legal source (DVDs, digital copies or any other legal format). While we cannot speak for other companies, we recommend checking the terms and conditions of any streaming service used to confirm that they do not prohibit public performance. [emphasis added]
Now, in copyright law, everything is up for debate. If I put this topic on the table at a gathering of three copyright attorneys, I guarantee you’d get six answers (maybe seven). And of course, attorneys love it when their clients test the boundaries of the law: it gives us a chance to engage in high-stakes, nuanced, and learnedly arguments—and sometimes, it comes with a paycheck.
But one thing most attorneys in the business world respect is risk. There is a risk that Netflix could view the use as unauthorized. And I stated above, unless there is rock-solid assurance from the vendor (in this case, Netflix) that it is authorized, use of a personal Netflix account for an institutional purpose is just too risky.
How does this play out in the real world? Large services like Netflix look for “teachable moments,” to bring lawsuits. They send out private investigators, track IP addresses, and look for evidence of broad misuse. Once they gather the evidence, they select a victim, and sue (although in the case of Neflix, Section 7 of the License allows for them to resolve the matter via private arbitration).
What is the protection against that? An institutional policy that bars use of personal accounts for professional purposes.
There are some approaches to this educational dilemma that do pass my “sniff test.” Some colleges encourage students to get Netflix accounts if they are taking a film class, so they can watch movies at home. Near as I can see, unless Netflix starts putting some new “not for class” terms in its license, this is okay (but does not extend to the entire class using one student’s account…unless they are all in the same household).
Similarly, if a history teacher wants to use their Netflix account to view “13,” at home, even if it is to prepare for a lecture or a discussion of the film in class the next day, that strikes me as a “personal” use. But if their institution asked them to do it, or they wanted to use their account to watch the movie in class, that would not be allowed.
I wish I could give the member clever answer informed by Fair Use, or coming up with some special rule that applies to libraries. But licensing is a creature of contract, and if you accept the terms, they will generally govern.
So, just like this member, read those licenses carefully!
 I know it sounds rather cold, but in liability-land, schools are “corporations.”
 You should see the analogies I left on the cutting-room floor! My favorite involved a building permit and pirated architectural plans.
 I do not bow hunt, but if I hunted at all, that is how I’d do it. I have a friend who bow hunts; she is like Wonder Woman, but with white hair a much more practical gear.
 As of December 18, 2019 (I took a screen shot). We’ll see if it’s there in a year or so. I’m such a media influencer, maybe once Swank hears about me calling them “coy,” they’ll switch it up!
 As discussed in other columns, Netflix does have an “educational use” license for some documentaries. Their instructions to see if a movie is available that way is here: https://help.netflix.com/en/node/57695
 ASCAP, BMI, RIAA, MPAA, and DirectTV were the pioneers of this tactic.
 I would like to thank Jim Belair (who gave me permission to credit him here) at Monroe 2 Orleans BOCES for a great discussion on the implications of this issue for New York public schools. Most institutions don’t invest in DVD players anymore, which means that streaming is the way the access content. But if the streaming service isn’t in the name of school (just the teacher or the administrator) use by the school risks violating their license.
Tags: Copyright, Movies, Streaming, Swank Movie Licensing, Umbrella Licensing, Licensing
What qualifies as a legally owned copy of a movie? I understand that the physical copy, when loaned is transferrable and can be covered with an Umbrella License from SWANK or other companies. I believe that streaming services do not qualify as an owned copy as they have licensing that does not work with the Umbrella License. What about movie rentals from iTunes? Does that licensing also exclude itself from the umbrella license? I guess my question is, does only a physical copy of the item work with the Umbrella License provided?
Schools, libraries, prisons, museums, student clubs, companies…from time to time, these places just want to hand out snacks, and let people watch a movie.
The problem is, the simple act of gathering people to watch a movie is governed by an intricate web of copyright law, and the legal filaments of that web change from place to place.
To help institutions navigate this variability, movie studios and agencies (including Swank, the agency mentioned in the question) offer suites of “licensing” options. Swank’s website even features helpful copyright guides to help customers assess their needs and obligations, so they can select the right license—including an array of broad permissions called an “umbrella license.”
Under an “umbrella license,” movies that the agency has the rights to may be shown by the licensee (under an array of qualifying circumstances). And as the member writes, this can include showing movies from a borrowed physical copy (like a DVD), even if the copy isn’t supplied by the service.
How does that work? Here’s an example:
Let’s say my daughter’s kindergarten teacher wants to show the class “My Neighbor Totoro.” The teacher stops at a local library to obtain a copy on DVD, which bears the warning “licensed for home viewing only.”
Next, the teacher checks in with the school and confirms that the school is licensed to show “Totoro” under the school’s umbrella license. My daughter’s class can now watch a masterpiece of Japanese animation, without fear of copyright infringement.
Now let’s switch the scenario up: the teacher wants to stream the movie from his iTunes. The school still has that same umbrella license. Can the teacher use his personal account to show the movie?
That said, depending on how broad it is, the school could try and claim the “umbrella license” to get the school out from under a claim of direct infringement. But that could leave the teacher twisting in the wind! - Not very good for union relations.
To switch the scenario one last time: let’s say the school has an “umbrella license” from an agency like Swank, and also subscribes to a streaming movie service (Amazon Prime). Before a class views a movie via the Prime stream, the school would need to review both licenses to ensure the Prime license was consistent with, or trumped by, the “umbrella.”
This issue here isn’t really about streaming v. hard copies. It’s about licenses. In our first scenario, the “generic” license on a hard copy is (potentially) trumped by the “umbrella license” held by the school. In the second scenario, the personal license held by the teacher could be violated when he uses his account for more than “personal” use—even though the school is licensed to show the movie. And in the third scenario: well, it depends.
The key to this question is license alignment. If an institution has a license to view a movie, and gets the copy it views from another source, there must be no contradictory provisions in the stack of licenses—or, the umbrella license must clearly trump the previous license. This is true whether the institution is using a hard copy or a streaming copy, and regardless of who the physical copy belongs to.
The member’s question alerts us to this complexity, and the member is right to approach this issue with caution.
So. What constitutes “a legally owned copy?” I wish I had a simple and rock-solid answer, but these days, that can be a tough call. Reading the fine print on licenses might not be fun, but it is an essential part of answering this type of question, and it needs to be done on a case-by-case basis. This is why careful planning during procurement, and attention to details when negotiating licenses and services, is critical.
Thanks for a question that pulls the focus to this issue.
 “Helpful” in the sense that they inform potential customers as to why they need Swank’s service! But the “help” is based on reality.
 This is a fantasy example. But they did show her “The Little Mermaid.” Sigh.
 As seen on December 9, 2019 at https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/us/terms.html. That said, each work can have its own terms, so always read carefully.
 But not, perhaps, “contributory infringement” (assisting in infringement by another).
 This answer is esoteric enough, so we won’t dive into the further implications of streaming movies under the TEACH Act…but commentary on that can be found in earlier answers.
 Always check you umbrella license!
 Okay, I’ll admit it: I find reading the fine print fun.
Tags: Copyright, Movies, Streaming, Swank Movie Licensing, Umbrella Licensing, Licensing
Our school district offers a Community Education program that offers courses on a broad range of topics to the community. In some of these Community Education classes the instructor may want to show a DVD movie or stream a movie that is related to the course. Would this violate fair use and copyright? How would this also change the outcome if our school district has a subscription with SWANK Movie Licensing?
Flying at 10,000 feet, the answer to the first question is: if the class in in person (not online), AND the institution is non-profit, AND the only viewers are the instructor and the students enrolled in the class, AND the viewing is in the classroom or academic facilities, AND the content is part of the curriculum, AND the copy was legally obtained…then the showing is allowed under Section 110(1) of the Copyright Act (“110”).
The answer to the second question is: if use of the precise copy is controlled by a SWANK license, then despite authorization under 110, the showing must be consistent with the terms of that license. For that matter, the use of any other content service for viewing movies (Netflix, YouTube, etc.) must also conform to the terms of the service’s license.
Swooping a bit lower to the ground (but not into the weeds): exercising rights under 110 is why it is important that: 1) class syllabi show the relationship of materials to the goals of a course, 2) institutions maintain lists of enrolled students, and 3) institutions have designated spaces for instructional activities.
This is why reading the fine print on content licenses is important, since contractual obligations can over-ride rights otherwise granted by law.
How does a school librarian help instructors stay within the bounds of the law or the license? A good rule for educational institutions is to have clear and pro-active policies and outreach for instructors who need to show movies. In this world where education gets hit with new laws, regulations, and policies every year, while clear policies are important, a simple message to instructors: “Need to show a movie in class? Ask us how!” is a great place to start.
 Here is the full text of sub-section (1) of 17 U.S. Code Section 110: [Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright:] “performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction, unless, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, the performance, or the display of individual images, is given by means of a copy that was not lawfully made under this title, and that the person responsible for the performance knew or had reason to believe was not lawfully made….”
 What’s a sign that your institution’s policy is sufficiently “clear and pro-active?” Instructors not using their own personal Netflix accounts is Exhibit #1.
Tags: Copyright, Fair Use, Movies, School Libraries, Swank Movie Licensing, Licensing, Streaming
In a public school...What are the possible legal consequences of showing Netflix or other digital streaming services like HULU from a personal account in a classroom setting.
Can teachers legally stream Netflix services from their personal account in the classroom?
The "Educational Screenings of Documentaries" section of Netflix indicates to me that those documentaries listed are the only titles that would be allowed to be shown through a personal account and that all others are for personal use only, meaning that Fair Use would not apply.
I found a Lib Guide from the James E Tobin Library:( https://molloy.libguides.com/streaming/netflix ) that explains how the personal license overrules copy right exemption. I understand what the page is saying in its entirety and like their explanation, but would appreciate having a legal perspective on this issue.
Thank you for any help you can provide!
The relationship between a person and their streaming content service is almost always governed by a type of contract called a “license.”
As the members states, such a license (often accepted by clicking to accept terms left unread) can over-ride the infringement exceptions like those found in 17 U.S.C. §§107, 108, and 110.
In other words, once a user voluntarily agrees to a contract restricting use of content, rights they may have once by law may become inaccessible.
Use of streaming content in the educational setting is a good example of this. While Section 110 of the Copyright Act may allow a teacher to show a movie in class (if the movie is shown in the physical classroom and if the content is part of the curriculum), that same movie might not be accessible under the teacher’s Netflix license.
Why? Content providers change the terms of licenses all the time, but one thing is pretty constant: restricting subscription access to personal use.
Here is how Hulu puts it:
3.2 Your License. Hulu is pleased to grant you a non-exclusive limited license to use the Services, including accessing and viewing the Content on a streaming-only basis through the Video Player, for personal, non-commercial purposes as set forth in these Terms.
Netflix has a similar-sounding restriction. Even the “Educational Screenings of Documentaries” the member references (found at https://help.netflix.com/en/node/57695) license is pretty narrow (and actually a shrewd PR move for a commercial service):
Educational screenings are permitted for any of the documentaries noted with this information, on the following terms:
The documentary may only be accessed via the Netflix service, by a Netflix account holder. We don’t sell DVDs, nor can we provide other ways for you to exhibit the film.
The screening must be non-profit and non-commercial. That means you can’t charge admission, or solicit donations, or accept advertising or commercial sponsorships in connection with the screening.
Please don’t use Netflix’s logos in any promotion for the screening, or do anything else that indicates that the screening is “official” or endorsed by Netflix.
We trust our users to respect these guidelines, which are intended to help you share and discuss our documentary content in your community.
To the extent your institution requires you to demonstrate that you have a license for your screening, please show them this page.
So there you have it: the only Netflix content that may be shown for classroom use is, as the member states, per this permission.
But (to address the other part of the member’s question) what are the consequences for not abiding by the license? Is there a growing body of case law to show the fines, terminated accounts, and jail time people are doing when they violate the terms of their streaming service license?
There is not.
Why? Most of these license agreements have arbitration clauses, meaning that disputes are settled without the publicly accessible process found in a court of law.
Here is part of the arbitration clause from Netflix:
So there may be a number of instances where a license has been violated, and Netflix has sought “…the same damages and relief that a court can award” via arbitration. But I don’t have access to that information. Most of us just don’t know.
I do know, however, that violating a license is wrong, and can have consequences.  Further, I would hope that in the educational setting, modeling casual disregard for personal contractual obligations is not encouraged.
Teachers are usually barred by the contract from streaming Netflix services from their personal account in the classroom. Unless there is an express license to the school from a streaming service, or for a particular film, I encourage teachers to obtain physical copies of films/DVD’s from the library, and play them in class on a good old-fashioned TV and DVD player, as Section 110 of the Copyright Act allows them to do.
Thanks for this perceptive question.
 Fair use, library exemptions, and certain educational/charitable exemptions, respectively.
 I am mostly kidding about this last one.
 Interestingly, as of this writing, Netflix is hosting “The Arbitration,” a 2016 film where: “An arbitration panel is formed after a company CEO in Nigeria is sued for wrongful dismissal and rape by an employee with whom he had an affair.” An arbitration over unauthorized commercial use of a streaming service would likely be a tad less dramatic.
 And the people who probably do know are locked into confidentiality.
 Is a mandatory arbitration clause like this fair? Are highly-leverage content restrictions healthy for our society? Many would say “no” to both. But the member’s question was not about mandatory arbitration clauses and heavy-handed content contracts. Just wait until we get that question!
Tags: Streaming, Fair Use, Academic Libraries, Licensing
Recently, a patron asked what our library does with the digital movie codes that come with some of the DVD and Blu-ray disc we purchase. We have been throwing those codes out, so he wanted to know if we could give those codes to him (he would be willing to purchase them).
I would like to know the legality of selling them to patrons to raise funds for the library. What about including them in prizes? Is it covered by the First-Sale Doctrine? What if the fine print on some read "sale or transfer prohibited?" The discs are purchased with tax-payer money, does that further complicate the situation?
When purchasing DVDs/Blu-rays at a library there are often alpha-numeric Digital Movie Codes available to receive a digital copy of the movie. These licenses seem to be tied to a single person that cannot be used or circulated in any easy way. Is there anything a library could use these licenses for, such as public viewings (as long as they are covered under the appropriate movie license) or giveaways at the library. Or are these Digital Movie Codes best to be thrown away because of the copyright restrictions surrounding digital content?
Two questions about a creative use of resources! Truly a joy to behold. Unfortunately, this is one of those questions where I have to be a killjoy.
Before I dig into why, let’s clarify: both members have asked about the “Digital Movie Codes,” or alphanumeric keys, on (or in) the packaging of certain DVD’s, Blu-rays, and 4K/UHD discs. Through a process called “redemption,” the holder of such a code can download a copy of the movie in the package.
After “redeeming” the code, the holder can download the film to their phone, tablet, or computer. The idea is that once you’ve paid for the hard copy, even if it is copyright-protected, the purchaser should be able to view the movie on the medium of their choice.
So, can these fantastic codes be used, transferred, or raffled off by a library? Because of the diversity of licensing terms, there is no one, definitive answer. But my time researching showed that a growing number of these codes are supported at the back end by a company called “Movies Anywhere.”
Digital codes originally packaged in a combination disc + code package (for example, a combination package that includes a DVD, Blu-ray, and/or 4K/UHD disc(s) and a digital code) are not authorized for redemption if sold separately. By redeeming one of these codes, you are representing that you, or a member of your family, obtained the code in an original disc + code package and the code was not purchased separately. Your representation is a condition of redemption of the code and of your obtaining a license to access a digital copy of the movie. To read all terms and conditions applicable to using your Movies Anywhere account, click here. If you agree, click the REDEEM button above.
See that clause “you…obtained the code in an original disc + code package”? THAT is what kills the joy and puts the kabosh on the clever transfers and re-uses posed by the members. Simply by redeeming the code, the person who acquired it from the library (whether by gift, purchase, or luck of the draw) would be in violation of the terms of the license…not a very patron-friendly practice (although some patrons might disagree)!
But wait, there’s more.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the library could have a DVD-viewing room where the digital content of purchased movies was watchable? That, too, is likely forbidden, since as of this writing, participation in “Movies Anywhere” is limited to “individuals.” “Companies, associations and other groups may not register for a Movies Anywhere account or use the Movies Anywhere Service,” states Section 1.a. Libraries, while not generally thought of in such terms, are “companies,” so arguably, even redeeming the codes to put the content on library-owned technology is not allowed.
Of course, when it comes to these codes, check the fine print. If they are through a service that doesn’t bar transfer (or on the flip side, doesn’t require the actual purchaser of the package to be the redeemer), you may be able to proceed as envisioned. That said, I doubt many movie companies will depart from the Movies Anywhere model. Content providers have had almost two decades since the “RIAA wars” to get this right, and they don’t want to leave any revenue on the table.
How enforceable are these license restrictions? We’ll see. The industry is suing when the terms are violated, and defendants are fighting back (see ongoing case Disney Enterprises, Inc. et al v. Redbox Automated Retails, LLC, in federal court in the Central District of California). That said, libraries are in a different place than most “companies,” when it comes to restrictions on information. If there is ever a compelling, information-access reason—or a disability accommodation reason—to use one of the codes, that should be explored.
P.S. I saw a lot of reasons why libraries can’t give away or sell these codes, but I saw nothing that stops patrons from buying the hard copy, using the code, and eventually donating the hard to the library. THAT would be within the “First Sale” doctrine. So while I know that’s the obverse of what the members envisioned, perhaps that can restore some joy to these questions.
 Of course, “redemption,” which requires an account, also means the content provider gets a view into your movie choices, viewing habits, and choice of media. But I will save a privacy rant for another day!
 Disney, Lionsgate, Fox…each studio has its own special formula for redeeming these codes.
 Who are “legal residents” of the U.S., no less.
 The fight over digital copying of music, eventually leading to many fans swearing off Metallica.
Tags: Fair Use, Digital Access, First Sale Doctrine, Licensing
Amazon.com sells audiobooks. One of the formats is an MP3 CD. The image of an example box says the MP3 is transferable.
My question is, if I bought one of these audiobook MP3 CDs for the library, would it be copyright infringement for me to transfer the audiobook MP3? What if I wanted to transfer it to a google drive so that it could be shared amongst a teacher and her students? Would that be copyright infringement?
Just wondering on the dynamics.
The answer to all of the questions is: Yes, buying an MP3 audiobook on CD, copying it, and putting the copy on a drive accessible to others, unless the CD’s license authorizes it, would be copyright infringement.
An audiobook’s license is what that defines the permission a user has to copy the file. A typical license for an audiobook contains something like this:
When you purchase [Vendor] Content, [Vendor] grants you a limited, revocable, non-exclusive, non-transferable license to download or stream such [Vendor] Content to your computer and/or other device(s) solely for your personal, non-commercial use. You agree to not otherwise copy, reproduce, distribute or use the [Vendor] Content other than as expressly set forth herein. You will not sell, transfer, lease, modify, distribute or publicly perform the [Vendor] Content in any manner and you will not exploit it commercially. ”
Some licenses do allow transfer of audio books onto multiple devices, and some may even provide for one person to transfer the MP3 to another; the permutations are only limited by the soft and hardware containing the copies, and the business plans of the publisher.
Which brings me back to the member’s question. In the scenario presented, it is not quite clear if “transferable” (as used on the cover of a CD) means transferable between devices, or between owners; only by checking the actual licensing information on the product would you be able to determine that.
It is rare for the owner of an audiobook to simply offer limitless transferability, but the fine print, not the cover, is where you’ll find out for sure. And that is the dynamics (a good word for something as in flux and digital rights management)!
 Unless the recording is in the public domain, the conversion is for ADA accessibility purposes, if the use is a “Fair Use,” or some of the other very narrow exemptions apply. But we’ll just focus on conventional, copyright-protected audiobooks that a publisher is selling for money.
 The mystery is killing you, right? This is an excerpt from the Audible license.
Tags: Copyright, E-Books and Audiobooks, Licensing